Directory

My message 6.959, Disc He/She, that was posted this past week, demonstrates
that orthographical thorns do not send. I have replaced them with th-. Also,
middle English or Piers Plowman scholars who would like more lines from Piers
and the pronoun paradigms, please e-mail me. Also, can someone summarize the
patridominance in language theory of Catherine Callaghan?
+++++++
[former post with thorns replaced]
Dear Linguist List Subscribers,
For the continuing discussion of the pronouns, I have some lines of data from
the 17 manuscripts of the A-Version of Piers Plowman. They can generally be
said to be representative of 15th century usage. Is it not strongly suggested
in the lines that "proverbial he", and perhaps the "original" morphology of
the so called "generic-he", was feminine, not masculine? What a strange thing
to say! Can this be accurate?
Looking at the Middle English pronouns, using the modern paradigm to evaluate
them, is misleading and inconclusive. When the development of Middle English
"his" or "him" is evaluated without taking into consideration their
development from Old English morphology, much of the story is lost -- that
these two "masculine" forms were also neuter, and in this later sense ("not
one or the other"), served well for the indefinite singular -- by way of
development from the OE masculine/neuter obliques; and the feminine forms
were morphologically related to the plural. In the following lines, the
h-stem subject is the feminine(/plural), NOT the masculine. Am I wrong?
(Playing for a moment the devil's advocate) don't these lines below fly in
the face of feminist theory as it sees the "he" "stealing cognitive space",
whereas in fact, they are feminine forms?
I would like to have some feminist theory input about these lines of
evidence. If so-goes-the-language, so-goes-the-culture (a la Whorf), what can
we make of the "hers" = "theirs" identity found widespread in Middle English
morpholgy, and what can we say about the "proverbial he" in the following
being feminine?
Is there anybody strong in feminist theory, particulary a feminist
him-/herself, who can discuss this in the general forum? Is my understanding
correct that feminist history sees the h-stem feminine as having dropped from
living English by 1300? Please help.
Do not hesitate to contact me personally about any aspects of this, pro,con,
or indifferent.
LINES FROM PIERS
( * = unavailable character)
Passus III Line 229
A
Ch And he that gripeth gifts, so [?] god helpe,
D And ho so gripeth here gifts, so me god helpe,
E Thai that grypith such gifts, sa me god helpe,
H But he that gripeth siche 3eftis, so me god helpe,
H2 And he that grypes here gifts, so me god helpe,
H3
J And he that gripith mede, so me god helpe,
K And thay thatat grepyn her gifts, so me god helpe,
L And ho that gripeth heore 3eftes, so me god helpe,
M And 3e that grypit here 3iftis, so me god helpe,
N And he that gripeth 3e gift, so me god helpe,
R And he that grypyt 3oure gifts, so me god helpe,
T And he that gripith here gifts, so me god helpe,
U And he that gripeth here gold, so me god helpe,
V And heo that 3iftus heore gifts, so me god helpe,
W He that gripeth here 3eftes, so me god helpe
Passus III Line 230
A Schul ab*e [abide] it full bitterly or ellis the bok lyeth
Ch Shal ab*e bitterly or the bok lie*th
D Shal ab*e it bitterly or the bok lyeth
E Sall ab*e it full bytter as the buke tellis
H He schal abigge it bitterly or ellis the bok li*eth
H2 Shal ab*e it biterly or the bok lyeth
H3 Shal ab*e it bitterly or the bok li*eth
J Schulun aBugge wel bitterly or the bok lyeth
K Schallen abigge hit wel bitterly or the bok lyeth
L Shal ab*e hit wel bytter or ellis the bok lyeth
M Scholyn abiggyn wol bytter or the bok liet
N Shal ab*e hit wel bitterly ar the bok lyeth
R Shal ab*e ful bitterly or the bok lyes
T Shal ab*ie it bitterly or the bok li*eth
U Shal ab*e ful bitere or the bok lyes
V Thei schullen aBugge bitterly or the bok li*eth
W Shal ab*e it bitterly or the bok ly